Narottam Pereira Ltd. v. CIT

40 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1960#20772 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 13(4)Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)Section 90

Judgments citing Narottam Pereira Ltd. v. CIT

Essar Communications Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle-1 (2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 340/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

…refore, if any part of the control and management is situated outside India, the company cannot be considered a resident of India. 38. In this regard, reliance is placed on Narottam Pereira Ltd. vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 454 (Bom), CIT vs. Nandlal Gandalal (1960) 40 ITR 1 (SC), Radha Rani Holdings (P.) Ltd. vs. ADIT (2007) (110 TTJ 920)(Delhi ITAT) wherein the courts/tribunals have held that a company incorporated outside India will not be considered as a resident of India if any part of the control and management is situated outside India. 39. This is further amplified by the Explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bi…

Essar Com Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 339/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

…ement is situated outside India, the company cannot be considered a resident of India. 38. 39. 40. 19 ITA Nos.339 & 340/Del/2022 In this regard, reliance is placed on Narottam Pereira Ltd. vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 454 (Bom), CIT vs. Nandlal Gandalal (1960) 40 ITR 1 (SC), Radha Rani Holdings (P.) Ltd. vs. ADIT (2007) (110 TTJ 920)(Delhi ITAT) wherein the courts/tribunals have held that a company incorporated outside India will not be considered as a resident of India if any part of the control and management is situated outside India. This is further amplified by the Explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill,…

Mansarovar Commercial Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi

C.A. No.-005769-005769 - 2022Supreme Court10 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 26Section 6(3)

…of 67 v) Estate of A. Mohammed Rowther v. CIT, Madras, 1963 49 ITR 39, (Madras High Court Judgment); vi) CIT v. Chitra Palayakat Co., 1985 156 ITR 730 (Madras High Court Judgment); vii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nandlal Gandalal, 1960 40 ITR 1 (SC); viii)A.M.M. Firm v. Reserve Bank of India, 1982 SCC OnLine Mad. 187 (Madras High Court Judgment); ix) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bank of China, 1985 SCC OnLine Cal. 24 (Calcutta High Court Judgment); and x) Universal Cargo Carriers Inc. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1990 SCC OnLine Cal. 385 (Calcutta High Court Judgment) 4.3 Relying…

ITO vs. Sri. N.P. Bagwa & Others

In the result, all these appeals and cross objections are allowed

ITA 1012/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 144

…ent case because in the present case, there was no dispute about any re-assessment. 16. The last judgment on which reliance was placed by the ld. AR of the assessee is the judgment rendered in the case of Prabhudas Jagjivandas & Others Vs ITO as reported in 40 ITR 1. In this case also, the issue in dispute was regarding re-assessment proceedings initiated by the AO by issuing notices u/s 34 of the Act, 1922. We have already discussed above that in the case of re-assessments, reasons required to be recorded by the AO before issuing of notices u/s 148 of the Act, 1961 and 21 ITA No.1012-14(B)/13 & CO 5- 7(Bang)…